The empire of law works only when informal social norms sustain legal compliance.

Evidence

The significance of the rule of law for republican liberty was discussed above; in the classical republican tradition, this was expressed as the “empire of law” ideal-the notion that in a free republic laws, not men, rule. Of course this cannot ever be literally true, but it can be approximated in a sort of artificial way, so that life can be experienced as if it were true within a given community. This requires, however, that the law be widely regarded as clear, predictable, and legitimate, and this in turn is possible only when there is a generally high level of compliance and when legal rules are embedded in a shared network of informal social norms (Pettit 1997; Lovett 2016a). — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 66

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the legal realists’ claim that law without social enforcement is empty, and to Pettit’s own account of non-arbitrary power in his contestatory democracy work. — connects to: Law changes norms even when it never produces prosecutions — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 7224; Legal systems rest on customary social rules rather than moral foundations — HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Law…, 56; A functioning legal system can exist where only officials accept its rules. — HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Law…, 350 (+6 more)
  • DEEPTHINKING: That the ‘empire of law, not men’ is a fiction that can only be approximated socially — law’s legitimacy resting on informal norms — is a subtle point worth sitting with.
  • corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 66

Broader Connections